John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> writes:

>  I don't see any.  A list of links is unlikely to be included in the source
> code of a software work.

As soon as you put it into the help section of for example a Guile
Studio, displayed with a help-command and referenced back to some degree
(so that it's not just side-by-side distribution), it is included.

>> But I thought GPL is only meant to be used for software? Think I read
>> that many times in the past, that you should not use GPL for things
>> other than software.
>>
>
> Certainly a GPLed presentation or essay that is unlikely to be printed is
> no problem.  Most of my presentation slides are GPLed.  But being required
> to distribute the editable source for a specific copy of a printed book
> along with the book (or a written offer to provide it on demand) is a
> nuisance.

The source-code requirement isn‘t that big of a problem; I‘m publishing
roleplaying books under GPL and I just upload the code in version
tracking system. The real annoyance is having to include the GPL license
text. That doesn‘t hurt for Software, but for a printed book that eats
several pages I’d prefer using for something else.

If you want copyleft, easy publishing, and GPL compatibility, then the
only option I know is cc by-sa — which has the additional benefit of
being the license of Wikipedia, so you can use content of articles there
or contribute your text to Wikipedia.

The only downside of cc by-sa is that it is compatible to exactly GPLv3.
Creativecommons is the license steward (so they can declare that CC
by-sa becomes compatible to a GPLv4), so this is less of a problem as if
you'd explicitly choose GPLv3 only, but it's still a downside.

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken